The American Society for Microbiology's evidence-based laboratory medicine practice guidelines for the diagnosis of bloodstream infections using rapid tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

SUMMARYBloodstream infections (BSIs) are a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. Rapid identification of pathogens and detection of a few resistance markers from positive blood cultures are now possible through the increased availability of commercial rapid diagnostic tests, including nucleic acid amplification tests and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. This document describes the clinical utility of rapid diagnostics performed on positive blood cultures and provides evidence-based laboratory medicine guidelines for using rapid tests to diagnose BSIs in hospitalized adult and pediatric patients. This guideline was developed for use by medical (a.k.a. clinical) microbiologists, medical laboratory professionals, infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, hospital administrators, healthcare providers, and other stakeholders associated with BSIs. A panel of experts, including medical microbiologists and experts in systematic literature review, was assembled to formulate the Population-Intervention-Comparison-Outcome (PICO) question, review the literature, and provide recommendations for using rapid tests to diagnose BSI and improve patient outcomes. A comprehensive literature search of four electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane) was conducted to identify studies with measurable outcomes. The panel followed a systematic process, which included a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of the evidence and strength of recommendations using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. The panel evaluated the literature to answer the question: Does using rapid diagnostic tests improve clinical outcomes in adult and pediatric patients hospitalized with a BSI? Peer-reviewed literature was available to address three outcomes, including time to targeted therapy, mortality, and length of hospital stay. In general, the quality of the evidence was low to moderate due to the paucity of controlled, randomized clinical trial studies. However, eight recommendations were made based on evidence derived from the systematic review of the published literature. To answer the PICO question, the expert committee recommended using rapid diagnostic tests combined with active communication to decrease the time to targeted therapy and length of stay (strong recommendation). While the strength of the evidence for the impact on mortality is low, the panel supports using rapid tests to impact these outcomes. A summary of the recommendations is listed in the Executive Summary, which includes a detailed description of the background, methods, evidence summary, and rationale that supports each recommendation in the full text.